4.7 Article

Respiratory Health Effects of In Vivo Sub-Chronic Diesel and Biodiesel Exhaust Exposure

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24065130

Keywords

biodiesel; diesel; exhaust exposure; in vivo exposure model; health impact of exhaust exposure; respiratory health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our research aimed to investigate the health impacts of exhaust generated by the combustion of diesel and two different biodiesels. The results showed that exposure to Tallow biodiesel exhaust had the most significant health impacts, including increased airway hyperresponsiveness and airway inflammation; whereas exposure to Canola biodiesel exhaust had fewer negative health effects.
Biodiesel, which can be made from a variety of natural oils, is currently promoted as a sustainable, healthier replacement for commercial mineral diesel despite little experimental data supporting this. The aim of our research was to investigate the health impacts of exposure to exhaust generated by the combustion of diesel and two different biodiesels. Male BALB/c mice (n = 24 per group) were exposed for 2 h/day for 8 days to diluted exhaust from a diesel engine running on ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) or Tallow or Canola biodiesel, with room air exposures used as control. A variety of respiratory-related end-point measurements were assessed, including lung function, responsiveness to methacholine, airway inflammation and cytokine response, and airway morphometry. Exposure to Tallow biodiesel exhaust resulted in the most significant health impacts compared to Air controls, including increased airway hyperresponsiveness and airway inflammation. In contrast, exposure to Canola biodiesel exhaust resulted in fewer negative health effects. Exposure to ULSD resulted in health impacts between those of the two biodiesels. The health effects of biodiesel exhaust exposure vary depending on the feedstock used to make the fuel.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available